> I agree. I attempted to do that too.
>
> However, I think that the formats submitted to the contest are previews or
> examples only. We can always render the logo in other resolutions than the
> submitted ones after the contest. Therefore we don't need to worry about
> scaling up or down the logos. We only should concentrate on presenting the
> logos for the voters in a way so that they can imagine how the logos will
> look in any resolution.
>

Therefore, we should have only two formats :
- A small one, with only the symbol (or whatever representing POV) - 32 and 16
- A large one with full details and colors - 120 pixels and more

But that would be too restrictive


>
> I think your suggestions are quite good, but I personally would prefer the
> following:
>
> 1)  2 black and white formats (with anti-aliasing). One in 32x32. One in
> 120x120 or any other resolution with max 14400 pixels. These two formats
> should be identical, except for the size. They are required. [Application
> starter], [Web-Page], ['Made with POV' logo].
>

The problem is that there is a huge gap between a 120 x 120 logo and a 32 x 32
one.
I don't think that these two should be identical.
The 120 pixel logo ( if too detailed or cluttered )  would be unrecognizable
when downsized to 32 or even to 16.
Besides, if you decide to make the 120 logo simple enough to be easily downsized
to 16 pixel, it is very likely to dull at 120.


>
> (The reason I say [Application starter] and [Web-Page] is that some people
> may prefer the black and white version instead of the color one.)
>
> 2)  2 color formats. Plain colors and gradients are allowed, but not
> "effects" such as shading or reflection etc. . One in 32x32. One in 120x120
> or any other resolution with max 14400 pixels. These two formats should be
> identical, except for the size. They are optional. [Application starter],
> [Web-Page], [Banner and Homepage].
>

Same as above.
The difference between the format is too large.
I think it is a mistake to want a 120 x 120 and a 32 x 32 ( or 16) logo to look
identical.
These two formats do not serve the same purpose and not are meant for the same
things.

Besides, I think it's too restrictive not to allow shadings and reflections in a
120 x 120 picture.
We should also limit ourselves to formats. We can discuss about how large the
pictures should be, but not about what is inside them. It will hamper creation.
It's up to the designer to decide what (s)he is going to do inside the picture.
If the logo is not easily readable because there are too many effects for the
format, then he will remove them.


>
> (The reason I say [Banner and Homepage] is that some people may prefer the
> plain color version instead of the "fancy" ones.)
>
> 3)  3 custom (or "fancy") formats. All effects are allowed. 2 of them are in
> 180x180 or any resolution with max 32400 pixels. One of them is in 360x360
> or any resolution with max 129600 pixels. These three formats can be
> completely different from each other. They are optional. [Web-Page], [Banner
> and Homepage], [splash-screen], [wallpaper], [more...].
>

Yes, I agree, splash-screen is one I did not think of.
But why "2" 180 x 180 and "1" in 360 x 360. And why in square format.
Square format is required for the 'tiny' logos ( 16 and 32 ).
Above 64, I don't think it is necessary.

Post a reply to this message